(dissenting) — Charles T. Vidal has now brutally murdered three defenseless children — one in Califor*81nia, one in Idaho, and one in this state. At no time in the future should he have the opportunity to harm others. Anyone reading the record of his conduct could come to no other conclusion. Vidal’s permanent confinement eventually will be assured either through this proceeding, other proceedings in our state, or by proceedings in the other states where he has committed crimes. Having once recognized and said this, however, the question must be asked whether it is important that the process by which this state determines guilt and the degree of guilt should be consistent with our established standards of justice or whether the enormity of this defendant’s acts justifies a less strict scrutiny.
Our standards should be the same for all regardless of the offense or the nature of the conduct. If we allow a process resulting in Vidal’s confinement to occur without adhering to our established rules for admission of evidence, we make his confinement something less than one obtained in the tradition of our law, we substitute an understandable emotional cry of outrage for reason, and establish precedents for use in other cases where guilt may not be so clear or the need for confinement so urgent.
Vidal’s confession may be inadmissible because I am unable to say whether the state has met its heavy burden of demonstrating a lawful waiver of rights by the defendant. The majority fails to distinguish between a waiver of constitutional rights and the voluntariness of a confession. It also incorrectly deems “good faith” behavior by the authorities permissible, though such behavior may be coercive as to the defendant.
As we recognized in State v. Davis, 73 Wn.2d 271, 284-85, 438 P.2d 185 (1968):
The Supreme Court in Miranda [384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602] was unequivocal in holding that “a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendánt knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.” (Italics ours.) . . . The court was equally clear in expressing its *82reasons for placing the burden of proof on the prosecution. “Since the State is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado interrogation, the burden is rightly on its shoulders.” (Italics ours.)
This heavy burden is especially significant and justified in this case which involved a confession in the isolated circumstances of an approximately 8-hour, 400-mile patrol car drive from Wallace, Idaho to Tacoma, Washington. Such a situation involving “incommunicado incarceration before a statement is made is strong evidence that the accused did not validly waive his rights.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 476, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). See also State v. Davis, supra at 287.
The failure of the majority opinion to present or analyze any evidence relating to this period of the defendant’s transfer from Idaho to Washington undermines its conclusion that “the state has met this burden.” The majority opinion does highlight the appointment of counsel for defendant in Idaho and the significant protections the appointed counsel provided for the defendant before waiving extradition, as well as the appointment of counsel in Washington and the vigorous defense asserted at this stage. However, the opinion fails to comment on the crucial interim period at question where no counsel was present and the confession was forthcoming.
The record reveals this long and isolated drive involved two Tacoma detectives and the defendant. There is no dispute that the defendant was in custody and that the questioning which occurred during the transfer trip was interrogation. At issue is the lawfulness of the defendant’s waiver of his rights.
The detectives and defendant departed Wallace, Idaho at approximately 3 p.m. and made brief stops at Terror Gulch (for defendant’s personal belongings), Spokane (for gas and a coke), and George (for a meal). During this approxi*83mately 3-hour, 150-mile portion of the trip, there was no conversation regarding the alleged crime. After returning to the car following the meal, a detective testified:
[W]e started talking to him about the homicide. He denied that he had committed the homicide, and he said he had seen the body, but he hadn’t killed him.
Conversation continued about the body and soon the defendant inquired what the penalties would be for this crime. In response, the detectives did not tell the defendant that he could be charged with first-degree murder but instead indicated “I told him at that time ... it was second degree murder, it was the warrant we had.” With this knowledge, the defendant continued to talk about the crime and responded to quizzing by the detectives.
After the conversation about possible penalties, the defendant inquired if anything he said would be used against him and the detectives testified “we told him, anything you tell us can be used against you in a court of law, for or against you.” (Italics mine.) As to the quizzing which transpired after the meal at George, the detectives concede their intention was to elicit a confession to the crime from the defendant.
The majority concludes the above evidence meets the heavy burdens of Miranda and Davis, but reaches its conclusion without presenting any of the pertinent facts of the transfer trip or without demonstrating how the state has met its burden. The record itself fails to show whether the detective’s statement to Vidal that he was only charged with second-degree murder had the effect of encouraging him to confess or whether he would have confessed regardless of the charge. It is possible to infer from the record that had Vidal realized he could later be charged with first-degree murder he would not have confessed at all. Because of the lack of information in the record concerning these facts, I am unable to determine whether or not the state met its heavy burden to show a voluntary and intelligent waiver of Vidal’s rights.
*84. .The majority fails'to distinguish between Vidal’s waiver of rights and the voluntariness of his confession. In this case, the majority answers the basic question of whether the suspect waived his rights in the affirmative, not by evaluating the- circumstances alleged to have compelled a waiver but by summarily determining the confession was voluntary.
When there is interrogation of an in-custody suspect which results in incriminating statements, such statements shall only be admissible at trial if the suspect waived his or her rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel, and then voluntarily confessed. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). The suspect may waive the right to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel, “provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 444. It is to this waiver that the “Miranda rights” are critical. When such a waiver occurs, then the confession may be forthcoming and admissible if it is the product of a free and rational choice;
We recognized that waiver of rights and voluntariness of confessions can be two separate considerations in State v. Blanchey, 75 Wn.2d-926, 454 P.2d 841 (1969).. In Blanchey, at page 934, we held that when the defendant did not fully realize his constitutional rights, “then he did not make a knowing decision to waive his rights regardless of the ‘voluntariness3 of his statements.” (Italics mine.) The majority may be correct that the defendant voluntarily confessed, but under Miranda and Blanchey this conclusion is irrelevant to the question of whether preceding the statement a waiver of rights was validly made.
Any evidence that the defendant relinquished his rights because of incomplete information as to the possibility of an increased charge may result in a finding of an unlawful waiver of rights, thereby forbidding the admission of "the confession into evidence, be it'voluntarily or involuntarily-given.
*85The majority fails to recognize that the standards in judging the validity of a waiver of constitutional rights are concerned with the mental processes of the defendant and not with those of the interrogating authorities. This concern is dictated by Miranda’s awareness of the “compelling atmosphere” of custodial interrogations despite any “bad conduct” by interrogators. In addition, this concern emanates from the pre-Miranda due process “totality of circumstances” test of the voluntariness doctrine which encompassed all practices likely to exert impermissible pressure upon the individual. See Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 464. The character of the compulsion is therefore irrelevant if the compelling influence is shown. See also State v. Creach, 77 Wn.2d 194, 197, 461 P.2d 329 (1969).
This concern for the individual suspect’s history, personality and condition at time of interrogation has long standing in our jurisprudence and predates Miranda. Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 457; Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 (1964) (sickness); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770, 83 S. Ct. 745 (1963) (drugged); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1037, 81 S. Ct. 1860 (1961) (lack of schooling and mental capacity); Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1265, 79 S. Ct. 1202 (1959) (emotional problems); Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1448, 78 S. Ct. 1287 (1958) (legal education); Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 1 L. Ed. 2d 246, 77 S. Ct. 281 (1957) (feeblemindedness). See generally Developments in the Law—Confessions, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 935, 961-83 (1966).
It is paradoxical to see the majority finding apparent favor with police conduct which might in fact mislead the defendant under the stricter waiver standards of Miranda and subsequent cases, when such misleading and often innocent behavior was treated unfavorably under the earlier voluntary confession doctrine.
In Townsend, for example, the suspect was interrogated and confessed while under .the influence of a medication *86containing a drug having the effect of a “truth serum.” In finding' the confession inadmissible, the court held, the facts that the medication was administered to the suspect solely for innocent purposes (to alleviate distress from heroin withdrawal) and that the interrogators were unaware of the “truth serum” effect of the medication were of no significance. The court concluded “[a]ny questioning by police officers which in fact produces a confession which is not the product of a free intellect renders that confession, inadmissible.” Townsend v. Sain, supra at 308. Thus, the evidence offered in Townsend to show no “improper purpose” on the part of the authorities was deemed irrelevant. See Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 4 L. Ed. 2d 242, 80 S. Ct. 274 (1960).
It is the in fact compulsion that is critical in the determination of the validity of a waiver of rights and the volun-tariness of a confession. The question before us is whether the information supplied to the suspect invalidated the waiver of rights. If we can conclude that the in fact incomplete information provided by the police to the suspect would tend to compel a confession, the resulting confession must be suppressed.
The majority seems to conclude that there can be no possible harm to the defendant because of the then true statement that he was charged with second-degree murder. Supposedly, the court would find the confession questionable and possibly suppressable had the police information been untrue at the time it was offered to the suspect. Yet, does this change in conclusion make any constitutional sense if we are to look to the perceptions and judgment of the suspect? It is the suspect’s decisions that we are to judge, not the character of the interrogator’s decision making. Under either factual circumstance — whether the information supplied was true or untrue, or whether the detectives acted in “good faith” or “bad” — the suspect’s perceptions, mental processes, and resulting waiver of rights and confession would be identical. Yet the majority would apparently come to varying conclusions. The majority’s con-*87elusion seemingly rests upon the motives of the interrogators and fails to evaluate, regardless of motives, whether the conduct in question compelled a waiver of rights. It is this critical point the majority misses.
The factual issue we cannot pass upon is whether Vidal made a knowing and intelligent waiver on the basis of incomplete information provided, or whether this incompleteness was in fact no barrier to his waiver. I am also unclear about whether the trial court believed the state met its heavy burden of showing a voluntary confession due to the particular factors of the isolated nature of the interrogation, the length of interrogation, and the defendant’s lack of mental capacity. Under Miranda and Davis, the state has a heavy burden, due to the isolated nature of the interrogation in the car, to show that Vidal knowingly and intelligently waived his rights against self-incrimination and to counsel.
I would remand this case for a hearing on these specific issues.
Petition for rehearing denied May 9, 1973.